Evaluating Residence Hall Security

Residence hall security is an important element in the college decision process. The modern student arrives for the first day of his/her college career burdened with personal property of considerable value. A sophisticated computer system is the main tool of the student’s trade. Many other items of value accompany the student. These valuable items, of course, appeal to the thief and burglar. Not only does a stolen or vandalized computer have an expensive replacement cost but also the information stored in the computer is invaluable. Just image: a whole semester’s worth of information and effort lost!

Sexual assaults are also a potential problem. The possibility of theft and sexual assaults make residence hall and individual room security a basic prevention strategy.

To identify the most commonly used security devices and systems in residence halls, Blake and Associates sent questionnaires to 190 colleges and universities across the United States with on-campus residence halls. The Fall 2000 total undergraduate enrollment of these institutions ranged from 22 to more than 38,000 students. Thirty-six colleges, a 19% return, provided insight into the security measures utilized in the residence halls.

Significant findings:

Facilities

• Female students comprised approximately 52% of the residence hall population.
• Coed residence halls were available at 89% of the responding institutions. Sixty-one percent had only coed facilities.
• Eleven institutions reported having coed residence halls and one or more residence halls exclusively for male or female students.
• Three institutions did not have coed residence halls.

Locking of exterior doors

• The residence hall exterior doors are locked at 92% of the responding colleges at some time. Thirty-six percent reported the residence halls doors were locked at all times–a growing trend under consideration by other colleges for future implementation.
• Three colleges reported that the doors were never locked. Others reported that the doors were locked at specific times, ranging from 7:00 PM to midnight. Two colleges reported the doors were locked at a later time on the weekend.
• The residence hall staff and campus security personnel were identified as the primary parties responsible for locking the doors at the specified time. Only two colleges reported that the doors were automatically locked by a computerized system.
• One institution in the Great Lakes region with less than 5,000 students reported the “residents were responsible for locking their own doors.” They did not report any institutional supervision of residence hall security.
• A West Coast institution with a 20,000–40,000 student population reported the residence halls were not locked at any time.

Residence hall access

• Fifty-eight percent reported utilizing an access card control system for entry when the exterior doors were locked. The “swipe card” with a unique student identifier was the primary system used. Two colleges reported using a key system.
• Of the institutions utilizing the access card control system, 49% allowed access to more than one residence hall for at least part of the day.

Room access security

• Fifty-three percent of the residence halls were equipped with a device that automatically closes and latches the room door on at least some of the rooms.
• The majority of the States have, as a part of their Fire Prevention and Building Code, adopted all or a portion of NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, the nation’s most authoritative and comprehensive document on safety to life in buildings. Section 16-3.6.3 states “Each guest room door that opens onto an interior corridor shall be self-closing and shall meet the requirements of 16-3.6.2. Because 16-3.62 requires guest room corridor doors to have a 20-minute fire protection rating, NFPA 80, Standards for Fire Doors and Windows, requires the door to be self-closing.”
• Sixty-four percent of the residence halls were equipped with a viewing device in the door of at least some of the interior rooms. The viewing devices allow the resident to identify visitors without opening the door.

Security equipment maintenance

• Three colleges reported that they did not conduct inspections to ensure security devices were operating properly.
• At those colleges where routine maintenance inspections were conducted, the residence hall staff had primary inspection responsibility, closely followed by the college maintenance staff.

Major residence hall security problems

• The major, and almost unanimously, reported security problems were student apathy toward their own security and the lack of awareness of potential threats in the surrounding environment.
• Thirty colleges reported problems with students and staff members propping open interior and exterior doors, allowing nonresident and persons not known to them to enter without proper authority, and providing access codes and keys to other students.
• Alcohol use, extreme youth and naivety, theft of property, a “it can-t happen to me” attitude, assault, and domestic violence were other problems affecting the residence halls.

A Rocky Mountains state institution reported “I don’t know which is worse from a legal standpoint–keeping doors locked 24/7 and having students breach security by letting nonresidents in, or leaving doors unlocked during the day to avoid that legal situation, which, by doing so, sets up the potential for even greater security risks.”

This creates an interesting legal question for all institutions. Under the premises liability statutes of the various states, the institution may have a special relationship with the students requiring them to exert extra efforts for residence hall security. When students routinely compromise existing security devices and procedures, the liability risks and potential for litigation increase. One of the solutions is enhanced enforcement of security protocols. This situation requires competent legal advice and aggressive supervisory intervention.

Security enhancement strategies

• One college reported that they had “a $50.00 fine for each (security) offense,” which had a great impact on improving compliance with security regulations.
• One small New England college reported, “lecturing the students about the academic reasons for strong security plays an important role. Our students, in general, especially the upperclassman, care about the purpose of the institution and about each other=s welfare.” This, they believed, was the critical element in their residence hall crime prevention strategy.

What else can be done?

Central to the success of any program, security or otherwise, is that the persons affected adhere to the tenets of the program. Student “buy in” can be achieved by making them active partners in the program: from decision making to enforcement. Consideration can be given to appointing a Student Security Committee to establish rules consistent with administration guidelines. A financial penalty system could be enacted whereby there is a specified penalty for security violations. The collected funds could be given to charity or used for other authorized purposes. Peer enforcement patrols could be used to ensure building security standards are met.

Inherent in a successful security program is strict supervision and dedicated college administration involvement. One successful program has been the assignment of security or public safety personnel as liaison with specific residence halls. This has an ancillary benefit of the security officer becoming more of a friend and less as the “enemy”.

Some colleges have reported domestic violence as a problem. College administrators should develop a coordinated crisis plan for handling this problem. Domestic violence prevention information should be provided to all students.

A safe and secure residence environment leads to better academic grades, reduction in crime, and peace of mind.

« Return